"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

How can a counterpoise or chassis serve as an infinite source of
electrons?

They work like the receiving antenna of the cristal radio. Electrons from
the air go into metal.

Counterpoise is exactly like underground "ground". But if the soil is dry
sand or the rock there no free electrons. It is better to place the
conductors in the air.

When your theory would be right, the counterpoise would
get charged just like the antenna. In reality this does not happen.

It is not my theory. It is Marconi antenna and his theory.

The counterpoise only serves as a place to dump AC current (the output
of the transmitter) during the cycle of radio frequency output. It is
not (and does not need to be) an infinite source of electrons because
elecrtrons are not emitted by the antenna.

Where the voltage is there must be the electron emission.

Experiments with the photoelectric effect shown that no current below 10V.
But it apply to the flat cathode.
If the cathode is a wire the voltage is lower.

And what is with your antenna in sunny day?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

How can a counterpoise or chassis serve as an infinite source of
electrons?

They work like the receiving antenna of the cristal radio. Electrons from
the air go into metal.

That is not what an antenne does.

Counterpoise is exactly like underground "ground". But if the soil is dry
sand or the rock there no free electrons. It is better to place the
conductors in the air.

But they are not connected to a source of free electrons, so if those
would be required they would be depleted pretty quickly.

When your theory would be right, the counterpoise would
get charged just like the antenna. In reality this does not happen.

It is not my theory. It is Marconi antenna and his theory.

But is is wrong, we know today.

The counterpoise only serves as a place to dump AC current (the output
of the transmitter) during the cycle of radio frequency output. It is
not (and does not need to be) an infinite source of electrons because
elecrtrons are not emitted by the antenna.

Where the voltage is there must be the electron emission.

Experiments with the photoelectric effect shown that no current below 10V.
But it apply to the flat cathode.
If the cathode is a wire the voltage is lower.

And what is with your antenna in sunny day?
S*

Even if there are a couple of electrons that jump off the antenna,
it is not going to cause a measurable effect. You need more than a
couple of electrons to have a measurable current, and it is not going
to happen at those voltages and daylight conditions.

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Counterpoise is exactly like underground "ground". But if the soil is dry
sand or the rock there no free electrons. It is better to place the
conductors in the air.

But they are not connected to a source of free electrons, so if those
would be required they would be depleted pretty quickly.

Air is not perfect insulator. Counterpoise has a big surface.


Where the voltage is there must be the electron emission.

Experiments with the photoelectric effect shown that no current below
10V.
But it apply to the flat cathode.
If the cathode is a wire the voltage is lower.

And what is with your antenna in sunny day?
S*

Even if there are a couple of electrons that jump off the antenna,
it is not going to cause a measurable effect. You need more than a
couple of electrons to have a measurable current, and it is not going
to happen at those voltages and daylight conditions.

The selfcapacitance of an antenna is very small. You need a couple of
electrons to have a measurable static voltage.
For this reason the earth/chassis/counterpoise is necessary.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The selfcapacitance of an antenna is very small. You need a couple of
electrons to have a measurable static voltage.
For this reason the earth/chassis/counterpoise is necessary.
S*

Hello Szczepan.
A dipole aerial doesn't need a counterpoise nor does it need any connection
to earth/ground/counterpoise.

I've kept quiet during the discussion because I don't think of my radio and
aerial in terms of sub-atomic particles. For me, resonance, impendance and
SWR are more significant.

Have you considered taking your theories / discussions /
cutting-and-pastings about sub-atomic particles and other kindred items to
one of the physics newsgroups such as:
alt.sci.amateur
alt.sci.physics
sci.physics
I'd expect that you will find lots of people with whom you can discuss the
behaviour of sub-atomic particles.

Kindest regards, Ian.

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The selfcapacitance of an antenna is very small. You need a couple of
electrons to have a measurable static voltage.
For this reason the earth/chassis/counterpoise is necessary.
S*

Hello Szczepan.
A dipole aerial doesn't need a counterpoise nor does it need any
connection to earth/ground/counterpoise.

Is it your transmitter:
http://rf.circuitlab.org/2011/06/80m...e-antenna.html
?

I've kept quiet during the discussion because I don't think of my radio
and aerial in terms of sub-atomic particles. For me, resonance, impendance
and SWR are more significant.

Your dipole are exactly like the two Kundt's tube. There are "resonance,
impendance and SWR". To demonstrate of the SWR the tube end must be porous.
Air molecules work like the electrons.

Have you considered taking your theories / discussions /
cutting-and-pastings about sub-atomic particles and other kindred items to
one of the physics newsgroups such as:
alt.sci.amateur
alt.sci.physics
sci.physics
I'd expect that you will find lots of people with whom you can discuss the
behaviour of sub-atomic particles.

Electrons are the subatomic particles.
Radio is the only field where "plumber analogy" is totaly inadequate.

Kindest regards,
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
Is it your transmitter:
http://rf.circuitlab.org/2011/06/80m...e-antenna.html


Definitely not. That's a full wave aerial. It's an FM transmitter. I use SSB
and CW.

Your dipole are exactly like the two Kundt's tube. There are "resonance,
impendance and SWR". To demonstrate of the SWR the tube end must be
porous.
Air molecules work like the electrons.

The ends of my aerials are not porous.
According to Wikipedia, Kundt's tubes are used to measure the speed of sound
in a gas or solid rod.

Have you considered taking your theories / discussions /
cutting-and-pastings about sub-atomic particles and other kindred items to
one of the physics newsgroups such as:
alt.sci.amateur
alt.sci.physics
sci.physics
I'd expect that you will find lots of people with whom you can discuss the
behaviour of sub-atomic particles.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

How can a counterpoise or chassis serve as an infinite source of
electrons?

They work like the receiving antenna of the cristal radio. Electrons from
the air go into metal.

My god are you stupid, blinding, blazingly stupid.

So stupid you are the poster boy for stupid.

No such thing happens, you stupid, stupid person.

snip remaining stupid babble

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Air is not perfect insulator. Counterpoise has a big surface.

No such thing happens, you stupid, stupid person.

snip remaining stupid babble

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Is it your transmitter:
http://rf.circuitlab.org/2011/06/80m...e-antenna.html


You are so stupid you can't even understand a picture, you stupid idiot.


snip remaining stupid babble